GOP candidate: Civil war wasn’t about slavery

The Hill ^ | June 25th, 2018 | Lisa Hagen

[arrogantsob]

Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 “ No state shall, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS enter into any Treaty, Alliance or CONFEDERATION;....paragraph 3; No State shall...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another state, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War....

Pretty clearly the Founders anticipated this as did Washington who warned of the danger of secession in his Farewell Address.

Andrew Jackson said that he would hang the leaders of South Carolina’s Nullification movement if they tried secession.

[arrogantsob]

No it shows the opposite since it took a law from Congress to produce WV. Virginia had nothing to say in the matter having declared itself in secession. The people in WV were still in the Union and had every right to create a new state.

[DiogenesLamp]

Only a few states wrote them. Four I think. There were 11 in the Confederacy, yet people want to cherry pick their data so that it looks like what they want to believe.

It is irrelevant. Slavery was legal in both the North and the South, and the Federal government did not invade the South to stop it. Saying it did is just ignorant. (or dishonest.)

The reason why the North invaded the South was because an independent South was going to trade directly with Europe and the business of New York and the Tax Collectors of Washington, were both going to be left out in the cold.

The South produced the vast majority of all export value to Europe. Between 73 and 84% of the total of US export goods came from the South, and the US was going to lose 200 million dollars per year as a consequence of Southern Independence.

Worse, the extra capitalization of the South would have funded competing Industries against the Northern Industrial barons, and the low tariffs of the Confederacy would have had the western territories saturated with European goods at far cheaper prices than what the Northern industries could provide.

Letting the South become independent would have been a financial disaster for the economic conditions in the Northeast, where the powerful and wealthy Lincoln backers lived.

And *that* is the cause of the war. If it had been about slavery, they would have started with the Union slave state Maryland.

If it had been about Slavery, Lincoln wouldn't have supported the Corwin amendment, and the Northern states wouldn't have been lined up to pass it.

If it had been about Slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been issued in April of 1861 instead of 1863.

[arrogantsob]

Lee was opposed to slavery and made it clear he was fighting for Virginia not slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

If there were not, we would still be part of the United Kingdom.

[arrogantsob]

There is a difference between withdrawing from a political structure which was never assented to and one which has been legitimized by the People. All the difference in the world. It is a vacuous argument, laughable in fact.

[arrogantsob]

No one denies the South used every argument it could come with to excuse its’ actions. Most were childish.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

.

.

.

And:

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

[rockrr]

We didn’t secede from Great Britain - we openly rebelled against them. It was in all the papers.

[arrogantsob]

All these actions were appropriate given the danger facing the nation. The Constitution was not a suicide pact.

[rockrr]

Thank you for proving my point.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln didn't send an invasion force into the South to stop slavery. Therefore the war was not started over slavery.

Why did Lincoln send an invasion force into the South?

[arrogantsob]

No it was “The Democrats’ Rebellion.

[rockrr]

Lincoln didn't send an invasion force into the South to stop slavery. Therefore the war was not started over slavery.

Non sequitur.

[DiogenesLamp]

Slavery was at the root of the conflict.

Money was at the root of the conflict. Yes, Slaves produced the money, but so long as that 200 million dollars per year of slave produced money went through New York and Washington, there wasn't going to be a war.

What started the war was when the South made it clear that their money was going to stop flowing through New York and Washington DC.

Suddenly everyone became outraged about slavery in the same manner that Captain Renault was shocked to find out that gambling was going on in the casino.

[DiogenesLamp]

I absolutely agree with you here.

[Nifster]

Since I don’t know the man personally I would never make that assumption

[DiogenesLamp]

And why’d they want to secede? To preserve slave power.

This silly claim gets repeated endlessly. Let me remind you of the constitutional process. It takes 3/4ths of the states to pass an amendment. It would take an amendment to abolish slavery.

Let's see. 11 slave states in the Confederacy would have required 44 total states in the Union to give them the 33 states needed to pass an amendment against the opposition of those 11.

It took till 1896 to get what would have been the 44th state. Now add to the opposition of the 11 Confederate states, the Opposition of the 4 or 5 Union slave states. That means you would have to have 64 states in the Union to override the objection of the slave states, if all the slave states held together.

So how was "Slave Power" threatened? Looks impossible to topple "Slave Power" in any reasonable length of time.

Lincoln himself said this at his first inaugural.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

He says he has no lawful right to do so. (Boy, he changed his mind about that, didn't he?)

[morphing libertarian]

The south had been worried about the abolition of slavery since the declaration of independence then the constitutional convention.

Starting in the 1820’s after the Louisiana purchase the south was worried there would be more free states than slave states.

In the book about the plot to kill Lincoln at the train station in Baltimore on his way to the first inauguration, the plotters cited anti-slavery as their motivation. It’s in the book and an undercoverPinkerton witnessed the conspiracy develop.

Wilkes booth was mad at Lincoln for “freeing the slaves.”

The south’s economy was tied to trade and slaves providing very cheap labor. the opening of the west was now threatening the balance of free and slave states. to say the south was defending slavery is clearly wrong. it is an attempt by modern day apologists to justify the deaths their traitorous immoral ancestors caused.

It doesn’t matter what the north was fighting for. There was an abolitionist movement in the north and the congress was intent on more free slaves.

So, the south fought for slavery and trade and the north to keep them in. That; the same as against slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

and forced Northern states to round up and send back escaped slaves.

The US Constitution specifically required that. If the Northern states refused to do it, it was breaking the agreement upon which the Constitution was conditionally ratified.

The section of the US Constitution which specifically required all states to return fugitive slaves is Article IV, Section 2.

You won't like it, but it is in there.